Explain the Free Will Defence

Explain The Free-Will Defence

Both the Augustinian and Irenaean theodicies contain the argument that moral evil is an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of human free will. This argument has however developed into a theodicy in its own right, known as the free will defence.

The centre of the free will defence is the idea that a world of free agents is better than a world of 'robots programmed' to do only good. Once accepted, it would seem reasonable to conclude that if God is really good then he must allow his creatures freedom to act as they choose, even though much evil might be produced as a result.

Swinburne supported the free will defence. He said that if God had intervened to prevent the Holocaust for example, then He would have diminished man's freedom and prevented the prospect of genuine human development. A wholly good God is not one who operates like 'an over-protective parent who will not let his child out of sight for a moment', but one who allows his creatures the choice of doing evil. Swinburne argues that natural evil is necessary for humans to develop the knowledge of how to bring about evil.

Swinburne also argues that death is essential; it means that the chances for doing good or evil that it contains are finite. If we had infinite chances, then we would never suffer the consequences of our wrong doing. Salvation would be inevitable for all no matter how much evil was permitted. If we have genuine free will of our actions, then we must have a limited span on which to be judged.

Mackie argued however that it is logically possible for a good God to make a world containing only free beings that only perform good actions. He says since this world contains free agents that often fail to act in a morally good manner; it cannot have been created by an all-powerful, all-loving God.

However, Hick claims that this isn't the case, arguing that God would have to make beings in such a way that he knows they would never choose evil....